1947 BOND BREAD and its "imposters"....show us your cards ?

[ALR-bishop]

I have not kept my oldest versions of the Standard Catalog but do keep the 2011 issue because it was the last one that included post 80 issues. As Ted mentions it does list it as a 49 issue. My newest Catalog is 2014, which may have been the last print edition, edited by Tom Bartsch. It also lists it as 49

I lost a good friend and and hobby lost a great resource when Bob Lemke passed

[tedzan]

Originally Posted by ALR-bishop

I have not kept my oldest versions of the Standard Catalog but do keep the 2011 issue because it was the last one that included post 80 issues. As Ted mentions it does list it as a 49 issue. My newest Catalog is 2014, which may have been the last print edition, edited by Tom Bartsch. It also lists it as 49

I lost a good friend and and hobby lost a great resource when Bob Lemke passed

Hi Al
You and I have the same Standard Catalog editions (2011 and 2014). Here is the Copyright date and the 1949 LEAF listing in the 2011 issue (the 2014 edition is exactly
the same....1949 LEAF.

.




Furthermore, here is the Beckett 1998 edition, which confirms the information I provided in Post #342 in this thread.

.

Originally Posted by tedzan

Jim Beckett contacted me in 1997 regarding the 1949 LEAF set. Jim started identifying this set as a 1949 issue in
his 1998 BECKETT Baseball Card Price Guide.

Prior to 1998, Beckett listed this set as a 1948/1949 issue.



TED Z

T206 Reference
.

[abctoo]

Originally Posted by tedzan

Hi Al
You and I have the same Standard Catalog editions (2011 and 2014). Here is the Copyright date and the 1949 LEAF listing in the 2011 issue (the 2014 edition is exactly
the same....1949 LEAF. . . .

Furthermore, here is the Beckett 1998 edition, which confirms the information I provided in Post #342 in this thread. . . .

Ted, there is no question about many miscalling the issue date of the Leaf set as 1948 and not 1949, nor of the efforts you have undertaken to try to straighten it out since the last century.

My question here in this Bond Bread thread is, "What do any of us do about what OldCardboard says about "1947 D305 Bond Bread" cards ( https://oldcardboard.com/d/d305/d305.asp?cardsetID=1003 ) and what Sports Collector's Digest now says in its August 2, 2020 edition about the same cards ( https://www.sportscollectorsdaily.co...ines-1947-set/ )?

[tedzan]

OK guys,

Al Richter and I have provided sufficient evidence with Jim Beckett's and Bob Lemke's BB card publications that confirm the 1949 LEAF date has been listed
in their Catalogs as far back as 1998.
Furthermore, these publications also confirm the LEAF HOFer Premiums as a 1949 issue even before 1998. And, it was known back then that the LEAF cards
and HOFer Premiums were issued in the same vendor boxes. PSA and SGC could have corrected their egregious mistakes at least 22 years ago.


Here is my 2005 Standard Catalog of Vintage Baseball Cards (by Bob Lemke).

.


TED Z

T206 Reference
.

[abctoo]

Originally Posted by tedzan

Al and I have provided sufficient evidence with Jim Beckett's and Bob Lemke's BB card publications that confirm the 1949 LEAF date has been the standard since 1998.

Today, PSA in the "Facts" section of its website ( https://www.psacard.com/cardfacts/ba.../1948-leaf/144 ) states:

"The 1948 Leaf Baseball set consists of 98 cards, each 2-3/8" by 2-7/8". Key athletes include Joe DiMaggio (#1), Babe Ruth (#3), and Stan Musial (#4). The set is also anchored by diamond heroes Luke Appling, Larry Doby, Bobby Doerr, Bob Feller, George Kell, Ted Kluszewski, Hal Newhouser, Jackie Robinson, Satchel Paige, Phil Rizzuto, Enos Slaughter, Warren Spahn and Ted Williams, as well an evocative tribute to Honus Wagner (#70). Although only 98 entries were produced for the Leaf set, its cards actual numbers spanned between 1 and 168. The Leaf baseball production was the first major issue of its type to use skip-numbering, wherein the cards' consecutively numbered entries when fully assembled and complete failed to yield a correspondingly complete run of card numbers. Forty-nine cards are considered "Short Prints," including such lesser players as Johnny Wyrostek and Eddie Joost. Among the most desirable pieces is an error card - #102 Gene Hermanski – that exists without the letter "i" in his last name. This card is among the famous and sought-after of all postwar error cards, as are the Full Sleeve (standard) and Short Sleeve (error) versions of Cliff Aberson's card, #136."


According to its website, to date, PSA has graded some 25,724 cards as "1948 Leaf," including some 1,362 Jackie Robinson's.

You would think that one of the owners of these more than one thousand Jackie Robinson cards would have asked PSA to correctly attribute the card. Or is the apparent failure to ask for a correction more driven by a fear the card may lose value because they are not a "rookie" card?

Mike

[Exhibitman]

Meanwhile the portrait card is catching up to the Leaf card, priced to condition:

[investinrookies]

Originally Posted by Exhibitman

Meanwhile the portrait card is catching up to the Leaf card, priced to condition:

The portrait card is far better looking than the leaf, the portrait is exceptional and depicts the true robinson. Vastly under-valued card in comparison to the leaf especially figuring in the much lower pop. Might not be the most popular (yet) but it will catch up and likely pass the leaf over time.

[abctoo]

Originally Posted by investinrookies

The portrait card is far better looking than the leaf, the portrait is exceptional and depicts the true robinson. Vastly under-valued card in comparison to the leaf especially figuring in the much lower pop. Might not be the most popular (yet) but it will catch up and likely pass the leaf over time.

Was that last week's price? Prices have gone up a lot more since. Here's a scan of a card I found on eBay today (08/31/2020):



Priced at $3,950.00. I wonder how much the missing piece of the card would cost?

Of the 111 Jackie Robinson (Portrait with facsimile autograph) cards PSA has graded, some 81 of them are better than a PSA 1, including 3 at PSA 1.5.

The card you pictured is twice the condition (graded a 2).

Investors take note: perhaps the market is trying to say a PSA 8 is worth a half a million? And that's perfectly logical when comparing the relative scarcity of the 13 cards in the set one to another.

At one time, all 13 were "rookies." Now some cannot hold that claim.

PSA's total population report for all 13 cards in the set is 321 cards graded.

The hundred-eleven Portrait (with facsimile autograph) cards are over one-third of all of these 13 cards PSA has graded.

And of course, as the picture in this post shows, others card grading services are also active in grading them.